Public Hearing regarding Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
Changes.

Community Development Associate Planner Maria Harris gave a brief synopsis
on the proposed modifications to the City's Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program. She explained that the changes to the program are considered
a "substantial amendment" under federal regulations and require the modification
of the CDBG Consolidated Plan for 2000-2004. Harris stated that this is the
first of two public hearings to give interested parties opportunity to comment.
The public comment period is February 1 through March 5, after which the
council would make a decision. If program changes are approved, a Request
for Proposal (RFP) will be sent out shortly after the March 5 public hearing,
with a subsequent RFP sent out in August/September 2002 for the 2003 program
year.

Harris explained that the proposed changes include 1) Modification of the
allocation of the annual grant -- 75% for competitive grant programs, 5%
for accessibility improvements, and 20% program administration, 2) A limit
of two projects funded per year with one project being funded through the
annual grant award process, the other being the accessibility project, 3)
The use of a two or a three-year funding cycle for the grant award project
if workable, 4) A change in the annual grant award process making the City
Council the final decision making authority, and 5) A change to the calendar
year from the fiscal year to the calendar year.

Hartzell expressed her desire that the Housing Commission have the flexibility
to respond to different things that happen by allowing more than one grant
to be given.

Reid expressed concern over a perception of conflict of interest or
competitiveness in having the Housing Commission in charge of selection.
McLaughlin explained that it is common for the Housing Commission to review
CDBG funding applications and that this commission would not be a competitor
for these funds. The Housing Commission is charged with creating policy for
the community and is an appropriate commission to review applications.

Hearn questioned the 20% administration cost figures and the likelihood of
cost reduction. McLaughlin explained that Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
is asking for an increase in program administration, for example, enforcement
of the Fair Housing Act. In picking up these other areas of administration,
staff recommends staying at 20% for now and if things change in the future
the percentage could be modified. He noted that his experience on working
with Federal programs is that paperwork is not reduced.

Morrison asked for clarification on the reasons for switching to the Housing
Committee for review. Harris explained that the Housing Commission is more
up to speed with Federal regulations, is likely to have a more relevant
background, and have a better understanding of the CDBG program.

Public Hearing OPEN: 7:30 p.m.Public Hearing CLOSED: 7:30 p.m.

Councilors Hartzell/Reid m/s to add the following language for the allocation
of CDBG Funds as, "75% for preferably one, and not more than two projects,
funded through the competitive grant process...". DISCUSSION: Reid noted
that while she is not in opposition she wanted to make it clear that by having
two projects staff could come back and say the cost of administration is
greater than 20% which would reduce the amount of money available to give
to the community. Morrison stated his understanding is that there are presently
more than two projects and while we should remain sensitive to keeping
administrative costs down, he believes it will not pose a problem. Hearn
clarified the language of the motion to show that the preference is for one
project unless there is a special circumstance. Hartzell noted that up to
eight projects have been undertaken before so the reduction to one or two
will be significant. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

PUBLIC FORUMEric Navickas/711 Faith/Spoke regarding
space for putting up public posters in the downtown area. He felt that one
kiosk is not sufficient to ensure adequate public outreach and requested
that additional space for posters be created. He suggested the Chamber of
Commerce and the new Library as potential locations for new kiosks.

Zane Jones/223 W Hersey/Spoke about the issues of speed limit enforcement
and right-of-way law in the downtown area, and expressed disappointment that
the issue was not on this meeting's agenda. He encouraged immediate action
by the council.

Wil Thomson/539 Walnut/Spoke regarding the redevelopment of Siskiyou
Boulevard and safety issues for bicyclists and pedestrians. He suggested
timing the traffic signals on Main Street and felt that installing additional
signal lights would obstruct the flow of traffic. He encouraged the use of
drought resistant landscaping on the Boulevard.

Colin Swales/461 Allison/Spoke concerning the new parking structure,
noting the lack of use by the public, the accumulation of litter there, lack
of buffering for neighboring property owners, and how the structure negatively
affects the look of the area. He also commented on how the blocking of Main
Street during rush hour seemed to help in traffic calming, and expressed
concern about the proposed closure of Union Street in the Siskiyou Boulevard
project, especially in terms of Library access.

Sydney Simas/210 California St #A/Director of Communication for Student
Government at Southern Oregon University (SOU), spoke concerning plans to
facilitate a relationship with the city.

Mayor commented that additional kiosks are a good idea and will pass the
idea on to staff. He voiced the support of the council for enforcing traffic
safety and noted that measures are moving forward to address the issues.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Discussion of amendments to the "Big Box" ordinance - Chapter 18.72 of
the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.

Hartzell requested that this item be placed on a Study Session schedule in
March in order to allow time to further explore various issues. Community
Development Director John McLaughlin gave a brief background on the recent
history of the "Big Box" ordinance, and noted that it could result in a change
in footprint interpretations.

Amy Godard/396 Bridge Street #2/Supported the current "big box" ordinance
and voiced her concern with the changes that have already taken place in
the community. She feels that large buildings change the "feel" of the community
and that it is important to keep the buildings small.

Brent Thompson/582 Allison/Felt that we need to keep the current ordinance
in place in order to maintain Ashland's "small town" atmosphere. He stated
that a 45,000 square foot footprint is beyond the scale for a small town
community. He urged the council to consider reducing the footprint limit
to 30,000 to 40,000 sq. ft., and encourage building to expand upward instead
of out.

Bill Street/180 Mead Street/Commented on his choice to live in a "small
town" atmosphere and questioned how to keep it this way. He felt that there
are few ways to control growth, and that the current "big box" ordinance
provides a tool to help manage growth. He urged the council to seriously
consider the size of the footprint. He requested that adequate time be allowed
for public input and that an evening discussion meeting be scheduled.

Eric Navickas/711 Faith/Commented that the Mark Anthony building
(currently Ashland Springs) has a 43,000 square foot gross size, and urged
consideration of that when assessing allowable footprint limits. He cited
the Mo Jo Café as an example of a good size for downtown buildings.

Stan Druben/125 Brooks Lane/Stated that a new interpretation of the
"big box" ordinance would mean major changes to the community. He requested
that there be an additional evening public meeting scheduled in order to
allow public input and stressed the importance of educating the community
on the consequences of the proposed changes. He suggested that guidelines
need to be better not bigger, and that a 45,000-sq. ft gross size is a very
different thing from a 45,000-sq. ft. footprint.

Colin Swales/461 Allison/Presented photos of various sized buildings
in town in order to illustrate how a 45,000 square foot building footprint
impacts the scale and feel of the city. He noted the problems associated
with contiguous buildings and how design standards are not being followed
with current projects. He suggested tightening design standards.

Elizabeth Bretko/1372 Oregon Street/Commented on the need to protect
our "small town" and that the proposed changes to the "big box" ordinance
require public input before any changes are made. Spoke regarding the intention
of proposed changes and the resources that go into large-scale buildings.
She stated that while growth is inevitable, conscious growth is possible.

The council discussed possible future meeting times in order to allow additional
public input. The need for clarity, understanding, and consequences was noted.
It was suggested that a regular daytime study session be scheduled and that
another study session be scheduled just prior to a regular council meeting.
Barbara Christensen, the City Recorder, noted that council packet information
on this issue is available to the public via the City's website. Hanson voiced
his support of the current wording of the ordinance and did not see the need
to make changes. Nolte clarified that what is in effect today is a council
interpretation of the ordinance and the proposed changes would clarify that
interpretation.

NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS

Discussion of AFN and ISPs' relationship.

Electric & Telecommunications Director Dick Wanderscheid gave brief
background information regarding the Ashland Fiber Network (AFN) as an open
network and the status of the nine current agreements with certified ISP's
who provide retail Internet cable modem service via AFN. He explained that
currently AFN has no policy that deals with inquiries from companies interested
in becoming new ISPs and how this creates operational problems. He outlined
three possible ways to remedy the situation: 1) Limit ISPs to the nine currently
certified; 2) Grandfather the present nine, and increase entry requirements
for new ISPs; and 3) Initiate a moratorium on certifying new ISPs until July
2003. Staff recommendation is option 3.

Councilors Hanson/Morrison m/s to accept staff recommendation and the
City temporarily limit the total number of AFN ISPs to the nine that are
currently certified with the City until July 2003, when the issue will again
be reviewed. DISCUSSION: Staff was directed to measure the requirements
and production of the existing ISPs under current agreement with the City.
It was explained that all current agreements expire in July 2002 and that
staff is revising new agreements with additional requirements. Voice Vote:
All AYES. Motion passed.

Review of Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) Intertie Pipeline Decisions and
Future Construction of the line from Talent to Ashland.

Councilor Morrison stated his indirect relationship with the TAP project
through his employment at Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG).

Public Works Director Paula Brown gave a brief overview of staff actions
based on the Council's 1998 direction, including review of 1) Lost Creek
Water Rights: Evaluate the strategy for the purchase of these water rights;
timing, quantity, etc.; 2) Review the process of changing the City's Talent
Irrigation District (TID) water rights from the City's "Imperatice Property"
for beneficial use within the City; 3) Begin discussions with the City of
Talent regarding their TID municipal water rights and future use of those
rights; and 4) Continue with the conservation programs in an effort to meet
the goals for 20% peak day summer time reductions.

Brown stated that it is the staff's recommendation that the council direct
staff to bring back funding options so that the TAP pipeline and ancillary
improvements and connections to the City's distribution system can be completed
by fiscal year 2008. She explained that due to drought conditions brought
on by the summer of 2001 and the requirement for aggressive conservation
and mandatory curtailment, there have been numerous suggestions to accelerate
the connection of the TAP Intertie between Ashland and Talent. She stated
that the city did not meet its 20 percent curtailment conservation program
goal and expressed concern about meeting that goal in the long term even
with continued conservation efforts. She suggested three steps in moving
forward 1) Pre-engineering design with a time frame for the fiscal year 2006
budget. 2) Continue negotiations with Talent for use of their water rights
on a temporary or interim basis. 3) Continue strong conservation efforts.

Eric Navickas/711 Faith/Voiced his concern that the TAP project would
lead to further development in the community. He supported alternative sources
and systems for the use of water, such as rainwater collection and limiting
growth. He requested the council give careful consideration to completing
Siskiyou Boulevard before undertaking more large projects.

Ashley Henry/235 5th/Voiced her concern on proposed change to policy
without public input and proper noticing.She suggested that if the same amount
of time were spent on conservation as spent on the TAP project, that conservation
efforts might be more successful. She encouraged the council to be leaders
in conservation and resource management, and asked that citizens learn to
live within their ecological budgets.

Hartzell requested clarification on what the council would direct staff to
do and how it relates to future impacts, noting concern that policy drive
funding and information drive policy. She stressed her preference that
conservation be a priority. Morrison agreed that conservation should be held
as a priority, but to still look at supply. He suggested that the council
needs further information.

Mayor DeBoer voiced his support of moving forward with the engineering plans
on the TAP Intertie, and noted that he does not look at it as a growth issue
at all. He stated concern as to how the city would fulfill its responsibility
to provide water in emergency situations and the huge economic impact of
a water system failure. He favored going forward with pre-engineering and
the 2008 date. Reid felt that the best thing the council could do for the
community is to plan, and asked that staff be directed to bring back specific
information in order to help the council make the best decision for the long
term.

Hanson noted his support of the TAP Intertie in 1998, and that it is brought
all the way to Ashland. He explained that he sees it as an emergency water
supply that will eventually be needed and that the longer it takes to move
forward on this the more it will cost. Hearn supported having the water line
available for emergency purposes while continuing conservation efforts.

Hartzell supported asking staff, as time allows, to examine the different
facets of what was approved in 1998 and all the different facets of how a
plan is put together. She asked that a concerted effort be made to develop
strategies and funding to meet conservation goals, and suggested that the
council prepare to work with the community to set examples and provide
conservation leadership. Reid noted that a redundant water system would not
only be beneficial to Ashland, but to the Rogue Valley as well.

Councilors Reid/Hearn m/s to direct staff to move ahead with a preliminary
plan that includes conservation, engineering, and funding. Discussion:
Hartzell noted her support of having a plan and requested further
information on funding. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS

First reading of "An Ordinance Deleting Section 16.20.160 of the Ashland
Municipal Code to Remove Requirements for Franchise Assignment Approvals
when Corporate Control is transferred."

Councilors Hartzell/Morrison m/s to approve first reading of ordinance
and place on agenda for second reading. Roll Call Vote: Hearn, Hartzell,
Reid, Morrison and Hanson, YES. Motion passed.

Reading by title only of "A Resolution Authorizing Outdoor Burning Under
Certain Conditions between March and October 2002."

OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
Brief discussion by council concerning the use of certified wood for the
new City Hall addition at the Hillah Temple construction site. Staff was
directed to spend approximately $3000 extra to support certified wood use
in the construction.

Staff was directed to confirm maintenance service at the new parking facility.